Money-lending licence absence does not bar a Section 138 cheque dishonour proceeding; quashing at threshold was refused.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sought to be quashed on the basis that the complainant allegedly advanced money without a money-lending licence under the Bengal Money Lenders Act. The Court applied harmonious construction and held that the Bengal Money Lenders Act is a regulatory statute operating in a different field and does not create a bar to the criminal remedy under Section 138. It also noted that proceedings under Section 138 are not recovery proceedings, that the licence issue is not a threshold ground for quashing, and that the accused may rebut the statutory presumption at trial. The quashing request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be quashed on the ground that the complainant allegedly advanced money without a money-lending licence under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, and whether the two statutes create any legal bar or conflict.

Analysis: The complaint alleged advancement of money as short-term finance and issuance of a cheque towards discharge of liability, followed by dishonour and failure to pay after notice. The Court held that the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 is a regulatory statute governing money-lending business and does not bar the criminal remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court applied harmonious construction and held that both enactments operate in different fields. It further held that a cheque issued in discharge of an alleged liability remains subject to the statutory requirements of Section 138, and the question whether the complainant held a money-lending licence is not a ground for quashing at the threshold. The Court also relied on the principle that proceedings under Section 138 are not recovery proceedings and that the accused retains the opportunity to rebut the presumption during trial.

Conclusion: The absence of a money-lending licence did not bar the Section 138 proceeding, and the prayer for quashing was rejected.

---